As I've mentioned before in another thread I've been studying history for a while now. I can't figure out where people get this idea that it is honorable to fight in a war. In fact I've pretty my view on war is almost completely a pacifist one. I do not feel that wars of aggression need to be fought. Nations need not be invaded by one another. Wars of imperialist conquest are just simply wrong and there are better methods of uniting a region rather than just war. I feel that the only wars that are really justified in history are revolutionary wars, or, rebellions. I don't think even those need to happen. I feel that revolutionary wars happen only because an imperial power is somewhere they aren't supposed to be, so, they pay the consequences. Other than that- wars are just wrong- unless you love fighting for the state or being some political pawn out there. I'd like to get some libertarian views on this. I don't know why people feel that it is honorable to fightin a war. Unless you really liked empire building I don't see what you would find honorable in fighting a war.
Because State brainwashing has been extremely effective in suppressing the human conscience.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
The enemy is evil and wants to take away Nascar and ESPN.
Conflation of the proper sentiment of defending one's holdings with the idea that the state's holdings are one's own and that it is proper to die for them...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Daniel: Prelude To Ruin: It's certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent. I suppose it depends on how you want to define "honor." Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion. I don't think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government.
Prelude To Ruin: It's certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent. I suppose it depends on how you want to define "honor." Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion.
It's certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent.
I suppose it depends on how you want to define "honor." Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion.
I don't think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government.
You're right. Just the same, the stated goals of US invasions usually are honorable. In the eyes of most people, anyone who opposes the government doing _____ must oppose _____. When you let your emotions control you, an argument like "you're for the war or you're for the terrorists!" holds a lot of weight.
Also, I would still consider fighting in a defensive war for the US military to be honorable. I realize that this too is not the central point of the OP, but it deserves clarification. I still oppose the taxation element, but I suppose it's better to be taxed than to be dead.
SilentXtarian:I don't know why people feel that it is honorable to fightin a war.
Collectivism.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Prelude To Ruin: Daniel: Prelude To Ruin: It's certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent. I suppose it depends on how you want to define "honor." Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion. I don't think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government. You're right. Just the same, the stated goals of US invasions usually are honorable. In the eyes of most people, anyone who opposes the government doing _____ must oppose _____. When you let your emotions control you, an argument like "you're for the war or you're for the terrorists!" holds a lot of weight. Also, I would still consider fighting in a defensive war for the US military to be honorable. I realize that this too is not the central point of the OP, but it deserves clarification. I still oppose the taxation element, but I suppose it's better to be taxed than to be dead.
So, if China attacks New York, do you believe it is legitimate for the US military to go to war against China? What if the US military attacks China, will you go defend China too? To you recognize the national borders? What if Paris attacks Versailles, with you go defend Versailles too?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: Prelude To Ruin: Daniel: Prelude To Ruin: It's certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent. I suppose it depends on how you want to define "honor." Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion. I don't think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government. You're right. Just the same, the stated goals of US invasions usually are honorable. In the eyes of most people, anyone who opposes the government doing _____ must oppose _____. When you let your emotions control you, an argument like "you're for the war or you're for the terrorists!" holds a lot of weight. Also, I would still consider fighting in a defensive war for the US military to be honorable. I realize that this too is not the central point of the OP, but it deserves clarification. I still oppose the taxation element, but I suppose it's better to be taxed than to be dead. So, if China attacks New York, do you believe it is legitimate for the US military to go to war against China? What if the US military attacks China, will you go defend China too? To you recognize the national borders? What if Paris attacks Versailles, with you go defend Versailles too?
I believe the act of defending the people of New York and their property is legitimate. I would not approve of invading or otherwise attacking China directly. It would be legitimate to defend against any forces that are attacking New York, in addition to any forces en route to New York with the intent to attack the people of New York. If the US military initiated aggression against China, it would be legitimate to defend the Chinese, and the same for Versailles. I do not recognize national borders. The only claims that should be recognized are to land that has been homesteaded.
Just to make myself absolutely clear, the US government is illegitimate, taxation is theft, the US military's actions are abhorring, and the free market could provide defense better than any government could. All I'm saying is, in a life or death situation it is not only permissible but honorable to defend yourself or others against an aggressor, even if it means working with the government.
War is the epitome of collectivism gone wild. Lives, liberty, and property are all destroyed by the process. The only way I can see a war as justified if your side is on the defensive side (the ones who were invaded or are rebelling).
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Prelude To Ruin: Daniel: Prelude To Ruin: Daniel: Prelude To Ruin: It's certainly honorable (and consistent with the NAP) to fight in a defensive war. This need not be self defense, so I would see it as honorable for a group of people to voluntarily pool their own resources in order to take down a monster like Saddam Hussein. However, some of the tactics used by the US military, and most or all others, are certainly not honorable. In addition, extreme caution must be taken under these circumstances to avoid harming innocents and instigating further conflict. An occupying foreign army is rarely (never?) taken well, regardless of intent. I suppose it depends on how you want to define "honor." Fighting in a war to protect innocents after all other options have been exhausted is honorable in my opinion. I don't think the OP was referring to libertarian self-defense wars. I think he meant wars fought by the US Government. You're right. Just the same, the stated goals of US invasions usually are honorable. In the eyes of most people, anyone who opposes the government doing _____ must oppose _____. When you let your emotions control you, an argument like "you're for the war or you're for the terrorists!" holds a lot of weight. Also, I would still consider fighting in a defensive war for the US military to be honorable. I realize that this too is not the central point of the OP, but it deserves clarification. I still oppose the taxation element, but I suppose it's better to be taxed than to be dead. So, if China attacks New York, do you believe it is legitimate for the US military to go to war against China? What if the US military attacks China, will you go defend China too? To you recognize the national borders? What if Paris attacks Versailles, with you go defend Versailles too? I believe the act of defending the people of New York and their property is legitimate. I would not approve of invading or otherwise attacking China directly. It would be legitimate to defend against any forces that are attacking New York, in addition to any forces en route to New York with the intent to attack the people of New York. If the US military initiated aggression against China, it would be legitimate to defend the Chinese, and the same for Versailles. I do not recognize national borders. The only claims that should be recognized are to land that has been homesteaded. Just to make myself absolutely clear, the US government is illegitimate, taxation is theft, the US military's actions are abhorring, and the free market could provide defense better than any government could. All I'm saying is, in a life or death situation it is not only permissible but honorable to defend yourself or others against an aggressor, even if it means working with the government.
Who has the legitimate right to defend New York? Are you saying that you have the right to trespass into a home in New York for the purpose of defending said property and its owners? Do you have the right smash a chair upon a robber in someone else's house? I'm trying to get at your justification for having the right to commit acts that would otherwise be considered criminal.
They have never been in one.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I have to agree with the sentiment of many in here. State propaganda is constant and devious.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael